New Path Forward for Employers in PAGA Suits
The California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) allows aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the state of California. Recoverable civil penalties can be significant. For example, for violations of Labor Code provisions that do not specify a penalty amount, PAGA provides default civil penalties at $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the first violation, and $200 for each violation thereafter. Because separate penalties may be assessed for each Labor Code violation in the same pay period, PAGA penalty exposure can grow exponentially.
Recently, the California Court of Appeal handed down a decision in Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California, 88 Cal. App. 5th 65 (2023), that offers employers a potential path to limit PAGA penalty exposure. In Rocha, the plaintiffs brought individual retaliation claims and eventually sought leave to add PAGA claims based on the same conduct, which the court denied. The plaintiffs’ individual claims were compelled to arbitration, and the arbitrator subsequently determined that the defendant was not liable for retaliation.
On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s decision to deny their request for leave to add their PAGA claims. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that, based on the doctrine of issue preclusion, the plaintiffs “[could not] establish PAGA standing to bring a claim based on Labor Code violations by U-Haul already alleged in the [] complaint, because the arbitrator found no such violations occurred, and that finding has issue preclusive effect. It would thus have been futile to allow the [plaintiffs] to allege such a PAGA claim.” Put differently, “the arbitrator’s finding that the [plaintiffs] did not suffer a section 1102.5 violation as alleged in the [] complaint precludes them from qualifying as ‘aggrieved employees’ based on that same alleged [Labor Code] violation.” This means that if a PAGA plaintiff loses the merits of the case, then standing to sue on behalf of aggrieved employees disappears.
The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing another PAGA case, Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. S274671, to determine whether plaintiffs continue to have standing to bring PAGA claims on behalf of a group of aggrieved employees even after their individual claims are resolved. Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome of Adolph, Rocha provides a useful tool for employers to end a PAGA suit altogether once an employer can prevail against the named plaintiff.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Recently, the California Court of Appeal handed down a decision in Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California, 88 Cal. App. 5th 65 (2023), that offers employers a potential path to limit PAGA penalty exposure. In Rocha, the plaintiffs brought individual retaliation claims and eventually sought leave to add PAGA claims based on the same conduct, which the court denied. The plaintiffs’ individual claims were compelled to arbitration, and the arbitrator subsequently determined that the defendant was not liable for retaliation.
On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s decision to deny their request for leave to add their PAGA claims. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that, based on the doctrine of issue preclusion, the plaintiffs “[could not] establish PAGA standing to bring a claim based on Labor Code violations by U-Haul already alleged in the [] complaint, because the arbitrator found no such violations occurred, and that finding has issue preclusive effect. It would thus have been futile to allow the [plaintiffs] to allege such a PAGA claim.” Put differently, “the arbitrator’s finding that the [plaintiffs] did not suffer a section 1102.5 violation as alleged in the [] complaint precludes them from qualifying as ‘aggrieved employees’ based on that same alleged [Labor Code] violation.” This means that if a PAGA plaintiff loses the merits of the case, then standing to sue on behalf of aggrieved employees disappears.
The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing another PAGA case, Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. S274671, to determine whether plaintiffs continue to have standing to bring PAGA claims on behalf of a group of aggrieved employees even after their individual claims are resolved. Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome of Adolph, Rocha provides a useful tool for employers to end a PAGA suit altogether once an employer can prevail against the named plaintiff.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
The California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) allows aggrieved employees to file lawsuits to recover civil penalties for Labor Code violations on behalf of themselves, other employees, and the state of California. Recoverable civil penalties can be significant. For example, for violations of Labor Code provisions that do not specify a penalty amount, PAGA provides default civil penalties at $100 for each aggrieved employee per pay period for the first violation, and $200 for each violation thereafter. Because separate penalties may be assessed for each Labor Code violation in the same pay period, PAGA penalty exposure can grow exponentially.
Recently, the California Court of Appeal handed down a decision in Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California, 88 Cal. App. 5th 65 (2023), that offers employers a potential path to limit PAGA penalty exposure. In Rocha, the plaintiffs brought individual retaliation claims and eventually sought leave to add PAGA claims based on the same conduct, which the court denied. The plaintiffs’ individual claims were compelled to arbitration, and the arbitrator subsequently determined that the defendant was not liable for retaliation.
On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s decision to deny their request for leave to add their PAGA claims. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that, based on the doctrine of issue preclusion, the plaintiffs “[could not] establish PAGA standing to bring a claim based on Labor Code violations by U-Haul already alleged in the [] complaint, because the arbitrator found no such violations occurred, and that finding has issue preclusive effect. It would thus have been futile to allow the [plaintiffs] to allege such a PAGA claim.” Put differently, “the arbitrator’s finding that the [plaintiffs] did not suffer a section 1102.5 violation as alleged in the [] complaint precludes them from qualifying as ‘aggrieved employees’ based on that same alleged [Labor Code] violation.” This means that if a PAGA plaintiff loses the merits of the case, then standing to sue on behalf of aggrieved employees disappears.
The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing another PAGA case, Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. S274671, to determine whether plaintiffs continue to have standing to bring PAGA claims on behalf of a group of aggrieved employees even after their individual claims are resolved. Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome of Adolph, Rocha provides a useful tool for employers to end a PAGA suit altogether once an employer can prevail against the named plaintiff.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Recently, the California Court of Appeal handed down a decision in Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California, 88 Cal. App. 5th 65 (2023), that offers employers a potential path to limit PAGA penalty exposure. In Rocha, the plaintiffs brought individual retaliation claims and eventually sought leave to add PAGA claims based on the same conduct, which the court denied. The plaintiffs’ individual claims were compelled to arbitration, and the arbitrator subsequently determined that the defendant was not liable for retaliation.
On appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court’s decision to deny their request for leave to add their PAGA claims. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that, based on the doctrine of issue preclusion, the plaintiffs “[could not] establish PAGA standing to bring a claim based on Labor Code violations by U-Haul already alleged in the [] complaint, because the arbitrator found no such violations occurred, and that finding has issue preclusive effect. It would thus have been futile to allow the [plaintiffs] to allege such a PAGA claim.” Put differently, “the arbitrator’s finding that the [plaintiffs] did not suffer a section 1102.5 violation as alleged in the [] complaint precludes them from qualifying as ‘aggrieved employees’ based on that same alleged [Labor Code] violation.” This means that if a PAGA plaintiff loses the merits of the case, then standing to sue on behalf of aggrieved employees disappears.
The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing another PAGA case, Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. S274671, to determine whether plaintiffs continue to have standing to bring PAGA claims on behalf of a group of aggrieved employees even after their individual claims are resolved. Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome of Adolph, Rocha provides a useful tool for employers to end a PAGA suit altogether once an employer can prevail against the named plaintiff.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Related Lawyers
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Amanda Shafer Berman to Speak on Energy and Administrative Law at WEN-DC Webinar
As the Supreme Court's new Term begins, Jenner & Block Partner Amanda Shafer Berman will join a Women's Energy Network of Washington, DC (WEN-DC) webinar on how the Court's decisions are shaping the energy sector.
October 14, 2026
Publications
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman Quoted in Bloomberg Law on Senate Permitting Overhaul Bill
Partner Amanda Shafer Berman was quoted in an October 5 Bloomberg Law article, "Permitting Deal Gives Projects Defense Against Litigation Delays," on the Senate's new permitting overhaul package and its expected impact on litigation over federal permitting reversals.
October 2026
Event
Partner John Storino to Speak at Sandpiper Partners' “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable”
On October 8, Partner John Storino will serve as a panelist at the “AI and Outside Counsel Guidelines Roundtable,” hosted by Sandpiper Partners in Chicago.
October 8, 2026
Event
Partner Meghan Greenfield to Speak on Supreme Court Climate Case at Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference
On Wednesday, October 7, Partner Meghan Greenfield will speak on a panel titled "Boulder County v. Suncor Energy: What the Supreme Court's Climate Case Means for the Energy Industry" at the Edison Electric Institute's Fall Legal Conference in Salt Lake City, Utah.
October 7, 2026
Publications
The Form Rules Everything: A Seventh Circuit Ruling on ERISA's Substantial Compliance Doctrine
Partner Joseph Torres and Special Counsel Jennifer Beach authored an article for Employee Relations Law Journal examining the Seventh Circuit's decision in Packaging Corp. of America Thrift Plan for Hourly Employees v. Langdon, a ruling that addresses both the standard of review in ERISA interpleader actions and the continued viability of the substantial compliance doctrine for changing plan beneficiaries.
October 5, 2026